What JackBean is getting at is that claiming that a supernatural being can do basically anything is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. You can always just say, "Well, actually, nothing existed until NOW. God created everything AT THIS MOMENT, including fossils and memories, etc." This is a useless statement though, because if you take this as your premise then how can you ever discover anything meaningful beyond the answer, "God did it." The scientific answer is not only more rationally sound but also offers the far more interesting story. "God did it." has no proof to back it up and makes no predictions. It is not a scientific theory.

Well, given my brief suggestion, I had stated that a god could have potentially made millions of years happen in 6 days. To put it on a scale, I'd not consider it. I would say that god placed the processes and everything perfectly and let nature, which doesn't exist either, not even in science, work its magic. This would the "6 days = billions of years" suggestion. It is also interesting to note that it is said god works in perfection, and evolution is a concept where things strive for perfection, in a loose definition. It isn't great if you're going for highly accurate, as things are never perfect, but some traits are more adaptive, others being maladaptive. But in a non-scientific theory, or layman's theory, things are constantly evolving for perfection to survive, though in this case perfection is still subjective.

With that in mind, you could suggest (I know I am saying suggest a lot, but since it is not a testable hypothesis, I can neither support nor reject it) that this is one of his perfect creations, where things are constantly changing to survive. Another perfect process or creation could be one of the numerous on Earth or of the universe. Specifically related to Earth, you could mention the Water Cycle, for instance.

And yes, it is non-falsifiable. At least, currently. You could just as easily, however, say that the M-theory, or String Theory for those not familiar, is like the god debate. Of course we're trying to test it, but how can you test multi-dimensions that may or may not exist, and supposedly existed before the big bang? How do these multi-dimensions exist? We haven't even explored the deepest, or oldest, parts of the universe yet. We're getting there, though.

So, that's a mess... what am I saying? There are countless things in which we cannot support or reject simply because we cannot test them, either because we do not have access or the information, like the theory of abiogenesis or biopoesis. There's the theory that it started with self-replicating molecular systems, then gave birth to the RNA world, then DNA. The Fox and Miller-Urey experiments have brought great insight into this. And even more recent research is stunning. But we really are not any closer overall. It's the same with the first law of thermodynamics and conversation of mass and the fact we exist, along with biopoesis and spontaneous generation. The first two state that neither of their contents can be created nor destroyed. Spontaneous generation, taught in biology that it is false (though I prefer rejected or unsupported), is that life can come from nonliving sources. Yet in all 3 of these, something obviously had to something, because energy and matter exists, it had to have a beginning. The multi-dimensions in M-theory had a predecessor. Abiogenesis or biopoesis says that spontaneous generation has to have occurred at least once before, also given the fact that life simply just exists. We are also made up of the same atoms that all objects are.

It isn't that farfetched to believe an entity or some cosmic force that breaks all laws of the universe caused all of this supposedly impossible things to happen. Whether it is specifically a god or not, or the Christian god, is irrelevant. What should be focused on is the entity or force itself.

I could go even more at length, but I haven't slept since Sunday, I've had a lot of work to do, and I have a class starting, so I must take my absence. I look forward to your replies and insight.

P.S. I find the fact that something which breaks all things as we know it, to have created something from nothing (Regardless of the fact they, too, would need a beginning), extremely more fascinating and interesting because it's something infinitely more awesome to try and study how it behaves.